Free-text suggestion search across MLS feeds

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it lists exact return fields (id, address parts, beds/baths, list price, thumbnail), explains the global endpoint behavior that bypasses groups, and clarifies the effect of the optional group_id scope. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the use case, return fields, follow-up hint, and parameter explanation. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the expected return format, the scoping behavior, and the recommended follow-up. No essential detail is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explains query as 'address, MLS number, or partial query' and group_id as scoping to 'one OneHome market'. Both parameters receive clear, non-redundant explanations that exceed what the bare schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cross-feed suggestion search' and then enumerates the accepted search keys (address, MLS number, partial query). It explicitly states it bypasses the group/saved-search structure and hits a global endpoint, which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like onehome_search_properties or onehome_get_by_address.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives concrete use cases ('find an address', 'look up by MLS number') and explains that it bypasses group/saved-search structure, implying when it is preferable to structured search. It also advises a follow-up action (inflate with onehome_get_property). However, it does not explicitly name alternative search tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.